The executive privilege has been a subject of many interbranch disputes. Rarely, however, it is to be found completely unconstitutional by either Congress or the courts. The scope of information that is withheld from Congress and the public relies on the presidential interpretation and willingness of Congress to pursue an inquiry. Privilege is therefore more likely to be judged on its merits. The thesis presented the mechanisms of checks and balances that are available and were used to oppose the executive privilege claims. The step towards transparency provided by the Freedom of Information Act was evaluated in the context of how the government can affect such pursue. Similar approach was adopted with the Supreme Court’s nominations that Senate and president negotiate in hope to influence court’s political inclination. In both analysed cases of presidents invoking the executive privilege, the claim was challenged by one of the congressional committees. While in Obama’s case, the privilege claim was eventually struck down by a federal court and his appointee the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress, no such …show more content…
Bush’s U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey concluded that the Congress was sufficiently informed and therefore lacked the basis for demanding more documentation. On the other hand, judge Amy Berman Jackson nixed Obama’s claim arguing that the extensive amount of previously released materials cancel out the sudden step towards protection of deliberative process. Even though the House committee involved in the investigation of Environmental Protection Agency’s denial of California’s waiver presented a report concluding the White House intervened with the decision of an independent agency, the matter was resolved and it was the decision of the committee not to call for a contempt vote or court